Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

How to End a War, Eisenhower’s Way

By Jean Edward Smith April 11, 2009 7:00 pmApril 11, 2009 7:00 pm

President Obama’s unscheduled visit to Iraq suggests a president determined to see a war zone first hand and draw his own conclusions. Lincoln availed himself of that opportunity during the Civil War, but the most pertinent example may be Dwight D. Eisenhower, who toured the battlefront in Korea shortly before his inauguration. Ike had pledged to go to Korea if elected, and most voters assumed that the supreme commander — who had so effectively defeated the German Wehrmacht — would quickly dispatch the North Koreans and their Chinese allies.

Eisenhower may have thought that as well. Republican campaign rhetoric envisaged a unified Korea brought together by force of arms, if necessary, to insure “the future stability of the continent of Asia.” South Korean president Syngman Rhee shared that view, as did many in the nation’s foreign policy establishment.

Bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq might require President Obama to be like Ike.

Ike spent three days in Korea. He conferred with his old friends, Gen. Mark Clark and Gen. James Van Fleet, talked to division and regimental commanders, and ate C-rations at the front with G.I.’s from the 15th Infantry — Eisenhower’s old regiment. Most significantly, he flew along the battle line, roughly the 38th Parallel, in an artillery observation plane (the military equivalent of a Piper Cub) for a good look at the terrain. It was rocky, mountainous and forbidding — bristling with Chinese gun emplacements and heavily fortified. It reminded him of Tunisia during World War II, where an untested American Army had received its first comeuppance. “It was obvious that any frontal attack would present great difficulties,” said Ike afterwards.

Eisenhower drew the logical conclusion. “Small attacks on small hills would not win this war.” More important, “we could not stand forever on a static front and continue to accept casualties without any visible result.”

He returned to the United States determined to make peace. Truce negotiations had been launched in Korea 18 months earlier, but there had been no ceasefire. Casualties continued to mount. American losses (killed, wounded, and missing) stood at 75,000 in July 1951 when the truce talks began. They would eventually rise to 150,000, including an additional 12,000 dead, because of American insistence on fighting while the negotiations dragged on. To Ike, that was unconscionable. “We cannot tolerate the continuation of the Korean conflict,” he told his most intimate advisers en route home. “The United States will have to break this deadlock.”

Eisenhower played his cards close to his chest. He initiated a build-up of American forces in the region, ordered minor offensive actions, and instructed General Clark to step up the exchange of prisoners with the North.

In early April 1953 the Communists signaled they were ready to negotiate in earnest. Stalin had recently died and the new Soviet leadership apparently wanted to clear the table. Korea was one of several issues they sought to untangle. At a meeting of the National Security Council on April 8, Eisenhower announced his decision to agree to an armistice that would leave a divided Korea. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and Defense Secretary Charles Wilson were strongly opposed. It was Dulles’s view that the Chinese had to be given “one hell of a licking” in order to maintain American credibility.

Eisenhower rejected the argument. “If Mr. Dulles and all his sophisticated advisers really mean that they cannot talk peace seriously, then I’m in the wrong pew,” he told an aide afterward. “Now either we cut out all this fooling around and make a serious bid for peace — or we forget the whole thing.”

One week later, speaking before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Eisenhower made his intentions public. In what many regard as the most important foreign policy address of his presidency, Ike blew the whistle on those who sought to win the cold war militarily. “Every gun that is fired, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed….”

On the other hand, “A world that begins to witness the rebirth of trust among nations can find its way to a peace that is neither partial nor punitive….The first great step along this way must be the conclusion of an honorable armistice in Korea.”

After Ike’s pronouncement peace negotiations at Panmunjom picked up speed. President Rhee attempted to derail the talks, but Eisenhower brought him to heel. If the South Korean government did not accept the armistice, said Ike, he would withdraw all American forces from the peninsula, discontinue military aid to the South Korean Army, and terminate all financial assistance. Rhee backed down.

On July 26, 1953 the truce was signed. Korea was divided along the existing battle line, roughly the 38th Parallel, and the guns went silent. Republicans on Capitol Hill were scathing in their criticism. Senator William Jenner of Indiana called the armistice the “last tribute to appeasement.” House Speaker Joe Martin complained that Ike had not sought victory. Some suggested that if President Truman had agreed to the terms Eisenhower accepted he would have been impeached.

Eisenhower ignored the criticism. “The war is over,” he told press secretary James Hagerty. “I hope my son is going to come home soon.”

Like President Obama, Eisenhower was an incrementalist who preferred to move gradually, often invisibly, within an existing policy framework. But on the question of war and peace, his views were categorical. He rejected the concept of limited war, and believed that American troops should never be sent into battle unless national survival was at stake.

After Eisenhower made peace in Korea, not one American serviceman was killed in action during the remaining seven and a half years of his presidency. No American president since Ike can make that claim.

In bringing peace to Korea — a peace that has endured for over fifty years — Eisenhower asserted his personal authority as commander in chief. Perhaps only a five-star general could ignore his party’s old guard and overrule the country’s national security establishment, almost all of whom believed that military victory in Korea was essential. But Ike was an experienced card player. He could recognize a losing hand when he saw it, and he knew when to fold his cards. Only President Obama knows what he saw in Iraq, and only he can decide whether his hand should be folded.

When Dien Bien Phu fell and the French were being run out of korea, President Eisenhower sent a top secret, high priority message to all senior officers in the Pacific.
I have never seen a reference to this instruction in any historical account of the Korean War or of the Eisenhower Presidency. His remarks would embarrass all of our leaders that followed him so they have probably been hidden. After fifty six years they can not still be a secret.
I know the message exists because I deciphered it in the Eighth Army crypto center. Someone would do us all a favor by finding and publishing this pure Eisenhower message.

“President Obama’s unscheduled visit to Iraq suggests a president determined to see a war zone first hand and draw his own conclusions.”

Obama takes a photo op with troops selected for having voted for him and you credit him for critical thinking about the goals and strategy in Iraq? Puh-leaze.

“Only President Obama knows what he saw in Iraq, and only he can decide whether his hand should be folded.”

This from the guy who tried to cut and run every chance there was and then was proven wrong by events. Events he opposed and tried to stop from happening. His only chance is to make sure he doesn’t lose by running away from victory.

Well said, but the concluding line is missing any reference to AFGHANISTAN. Afghanistan is the stalemate war that Obama is ardently pursuing, far more comparable to Ike’s Korea. Iraq is yesterday’s paper.

Is there anyone left on our planet who does not understand that our situation in Iraq is no more and no less than the awful residue of of a spoiled frat boy’s failed bragadoccio, inspired by his 5 times draft avoiding vice president with his own dreams of ersatz imperialism? Barack Obama can learn a grest deal from Ike, not the least of which is that young Americans should never be sent to war by cowards who have never “smelled the smoke”, or by corporations which lust after another nation’s resources. Yes, we must extricate our country from Bush and Cheney’s disaster. There is no dishonor in facing the truth of the fiasco they created and quickly bringing our fine young Americans back home where they long to be.

Convenient facts are ignored in this interesting piece. As with his decision not to take Berlin, ignoring its strategic value and use of blackmail a mere 2 years later and continuing on until 1989, his legacy is seen today as an increasingly dangerous and maddened regime holds our allies hostage whilst China holds the cards. No serviceman died for the rest of his term; it is unclear if he simply left it for future generations to suffer the consequences.//www.tracesofevil.blogspot.com

Enough with the “Kool-Aid” commentary…. Ike didn’t open the process of getting troops out of the Korean War by starting off with announcing a withdrawal date. Obama did this regarding Iraq. To ignore that fundamental difference casts a doubt on one’s objectivity.

Why the praise for Eisenhower?? He was and is a confirmed war criminal, responsible for the death of over 1 million German soldiers over a 6 to 7 YEAR period after these low ranking troops surrendered. Senior officers often got off with minimal time or even just released, on the other hand these others were kept prisoner in open fields with no more than tarps to keep the rain off.
If you do not believe this start off by reading “Other Losses” and then other related material. I found out about this first, then followed up and the evidence was there for the interested.
I was interested in this when my now deceased father in law mentioned some of the story and I then followed up. May he burn in hell for the atrocities he committed in the name of freedom. He was no better than those who ran the extermination camps then and since.

Forgot to mention, my father in law was a prisoner in one of these “camps”.
Also, for a person who espoused family values as part of his platform for presidency, he sure had an interesting driver throughout the war, nudge nudge, wink, wink.

This was a very timely editorial commentary that reminds us all of the finer aspects of great statesmanship and superb diplomacy that are unfortunately not all that common a virtue in this day and age.

We all truly hope that there are ‘readers and leaders’ out there …. especially those occupying the many seats of power and influence who will give thought to this wise and sobre glimpse into history and take a cue as America tries to resolve the entanglements in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The latest missile test and propaganda rhetoric out of North Korea more than 50 years after the end of the Korean War should serve as a reminder to all of us that the Korean War did not result in peace.

In the first place US had no business to get her youngsters killed in Iraq. They then destroyed the existing infrastructure and now do not know to whom they should hand over the charge. I am glad that US now has a president who cares for his people. The thing to do is cut your losses and run from Iraq.

Ike did not bring peace to Korea, please stop repeating that. That “peace” was peace to America; no American serviceman was killed in action for his remaining presidency years. But is there still tension between the two Koreas right now? Of course. Peace in Korea for the past fifty years? Are you nuts? Have you lived in Korea during those fifty years? Or have you read from American textbooks, American journals, and talked to American PhD Historians about the war? Let me slap down some reality to the table. War still exists, but that war is a shadow with latent firing, imprisonment, murder, and spying in the South by North Koreans who dress like and pose to be normal Southern civilians, professors, and news reporters. Do you seriously believe that the North and South were trying to unify during the past decade or so when Noh-moo-hyun (that’s right, it’s not “Roh”, that’s literal phonetic translation) was in presidency? They were and are still posers in those activities, don’t you read Korean newspapers? No? Oh, I’m not surprised. Whatever “Korean” news I read in the American papers are so damn flawed; precise interpretation across differing cultures is so difficult.

Anyway, I believe that Obama and Ike are good men, politicians—- for America, and only America. I would re-interpret Ike’s handling of “bringing peace of Korea” as none other than “bailing out from aiding the Koreans in case MacArthur kept winning our battles towards the north and stirring up some angry Communist Chinese.”

In my 23 years in the Marine Corps, I discovered that people who have seen war are the ones who understand that war is to be avoided at all cost. I hope that Obama, while he did not serve in war, understands this concept or at least gets the advice from old warriers like Jim Webb and not sideline bombers like Dick Chenney.

What's Next

About

As Barack Obama readies to take the office of president, which of his predecessors offers the best model for getting off on the right foot? The 100 Days blog seeks to answer just that question during Mr. Obama's first three months in office. Five presidential biographers will discuss the early days of five 20th-century presidents – Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan – shedding new light on the struggles faced by those men entering the Oval Office and comparing their experiences with those Mr. Obama will face in his first 100 days.

A close looks at polls of reactions to Ronald Reagan’s first few months in office provide striking parallels to what polls now find about opinions of President Obama. A consideration of the Reagan experience may well give some clues as to what lies ahead for the 44th president. Read more…